[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRIMINAL MISC. (PET.) (CRLMP) NO.1524 of 2011

1. Sudama Dutt Sharma S/o Shri Devdutt Sharma,

by caste Brahman.
2. Smt. Chandrika Sharma W/o Sh. Sudama Dutt
Sharma, by caste Brahman.
3. Smt. Manisha Sharma W/o Sh. Ritesh Sharma, by
caste Brahman
{All residents of House No.57/3, Mohan Colony,
Banswara (Raj)}
...PETITIONERS
Versus

1.
2.
The State of Rajasthan.
.IN
Smt. Kirti W/o Sh. Hitesh Sharma D/o Sh. Nirbhay
W
Shankar Pandya, by caste Brahman, resident of
c/o Chitranjan Doshi, House No.92/7, Mohan
A

Colony, Banswara (Raj.)

EL

… RESPONDENTS
IV

Date of Order :: 08.11.2016

.L

HON'BLE MR. P.K. LOHRA, J.

W
W

Mr. RANJEET JOSHI, for the Petitioners.

Mr. V.S. RAJPUROHIT, PP, for the Respondent-State.
W

Mr. M.S. SONI, for the respondent-complainant.

ORDER
-----------
BY THE COURT:

Petitioners have laid this criminal misc. petition,

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of
complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'Act of
2005') filed by second respondent-wife.
 [2]

It is, inter-alia, averred in the petition that

complainant entered into matrimony with Hitesh
Sharma on 25th of Febraury, 1994 and soon thereafter a
matrimonial dispute cropped up between the spouses,
which to led filing of complaint at the behest of second
respondent against her husband, Hitesh Sharma, for
offence under Sections 498A, 323, 406 and 504 IPC on
17th of October, 2010, who passed away during
pendency of the same. Apart from that, the
complainant also submitted
.IN
a complaint
petitioners and her husband under Section 12 of the
against
W
Act, 2005. In the complaint, petitioners No. 1 & 2, who
A

are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant

EL

respectively, were also arrayed and petitioner No.3,

IV

who is sister-in-law, was also impleaded as a party. In

the original complaint, husband was also impleaded,
.L

however due to his death complaint against him

W

abetted. By relying on the averments contained in the

W

complaint, wherein she has categorically stated that

W

she was forced to leave matrimonial home on 12 th June,

1995, petitioners have pleaded in the petition that no
case for domestic violence against the petitioners is
made out within the four corners of Section 12 of the
Act of 2005. Specific contention of the petitioners is
that since 1995, the respondent-complainant is not
living with petitioners, and therefore, the allegation of
perpetrating domestic violence by them against her is
per se a false and concocted fact and in case the
proceedings in the matter are allowed to be continued,
the same would result in miscarriage of justice. It is
 [3]

also pleaded in the petition that by entertaining the

complaint of second respondent, the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Banswara (for short, 'learned trial
Court') has abused the process of the Court, and
therefore, inherent powers are to be exercised for
quashing the complaint itself.

The petition is pending since 2011. On 26 th of

November, 2012, the Court was pleased to admit
petition and requisitioned the record. Later on, vide
order dated 27th of April, 2013, further proceedings in
Complaint Case No.14/2010,
learned trial Court, were stayed.
.IN
pending before the
A W
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Joshi, has
EL

strenuously urged that a bare perusal of complaint

IV

under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 makes it

abundantly clear it does not disclose the requisite
.L

ingredients for proceeding against the petitioners and

W

the complaint has been designed to harass the

W

petitioners, which is a glaring example of abuse of the

W

process of the Court. Learned counsel further submits

that although the Act of 2005 is a welfare legislation,
which is essentially enacted to protect the rights of a
woman, but then pre-requisite for taking shelter of the
provisions of the Act of 2005 is that the woman has
been subjected to domestic violence by her-in-laws,
which is conspicuously missing in the instant case.

Leaned counsel for the complainant, on the other

hand, submits that the factum of matrimony between
complainant and Hitesh Sharma is not in dispute and so
 [4]

also relationship of petitioners with the complainant as

such it is a clear case of domestic violence. Learned
counsel for the complainant further submits that a
cumulative reading of the averments contained in the
complaint makes it crystal clear that complainant has
not been subjected to domestic violence, therefore, no
interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction is
warranted.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the entire record of the case.
.IN
The precise object of the Act of 2005 is to protect
W
a woman against domestic violence and in appropriate
A

cases, she is also entitled to claim right of residence.

EL

The right of residence can be claimed by wife in the

IV

property owned by her husband or joint property in

.L

which husband has a share and not otherwise. A bare

W

reading of the complaint makes it abundantly clear that

W

it does not disclose any specific instance of domestic

violence against the petitioners as contemplated under
W

Section 3 of the Act of 2005 except certain omnibus

allegations against the petitioners. Moreover, there is
no semblance of proof furnished by the respondent-
complainant that her deceased husband was owning a
residential house or had a share in the joint family
property. In such a situation, a casual reference of the
name of the family members i.e. petitioners in the
complaint without there being any allegation of their
active involvement in the matter is sufficient to
conclude that complaint is in fact designed to harass
 [5]

petitioners against the legislative intent. In absence of

any concrete proof about domestic relationship with the
petitioners i.e. the petitioners and respondent had been
living in a shared household and she has been
subjected to domestic violence, the maintainability of
the complaint itself is under serious clouds. Reliance in
this behalf can be profitably made to a decision of this
Court in Hema alias Hemlata & Anr. Vs. Jitendra & Anr.
[2010 Cr. Law Journal 1744].

There is yet another aspect of the matter that the

.IN
respondent-complainant laid the complaint on 8 th of
W
February 2010 and during pendency of the complaint
A

her husband expired on 17th of October 2010, as a

EL

consequence of which complainant against him was

abated. In the considered opinion of this Court,
IV

therefore, learned trial Court has seriously erred in

.L

continuing proceedings against the present petitioners

W

on wholly untenable grounds. On the face of it,

W

when the complaint is bereft of pre-requisites of

W

necessary ingredients prescribed under Section 12 of

the Act of 2005, further proceedings in the matter
against the petitioners is nothing but a futile exercise
which warrants clogging of the same perpetually to
secure ends of justice.

That apart, in the instant case, the

discord/acrimony between the spouses started from
1995 and since then complainant is not living with the
petitioners and even there was a matrimonial dispute
going on between the spouses, is sufficient to conclude
 [6]

that there is no iota of evidence to indicate that she has

been subjected to domestic violence by the petitioners.
Moreover, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, any claim of residence staked by respondent-
complainant against the petitioners is wholly untenable
as per provisions of the Act of 2005.

In above view of the matter, if the proceedings are

allowed to be continued before the learned trial Court
on the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant,
it would obviously result in abuse of the process of the
Court.
.IN
W
Consequently, I feel persuaded to exercise
A

inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of

EL

entire proceedings.
IV
.L

Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed.

W

Complaint No.14/2010 pending before Chief Judicial

W

Magistrate, Banswara and the entire proceedings

pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside.
W

( P.K. LOHRA ),J.

a.asopa/-
20